Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

booksale

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

Handsome Bob

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

In a sense it does I'm sure, but only because we live in a society where it's becoming increasingly "uncool" to be religious among younger people, and thus one could potentially be treated as the religious "oddball" or "outcast".

In regards to the actual religious beliefs, I'm sure every Christian that posts here will tell you that the self-fufillment that they feel by obeying the rules is immense.

neuro-praxis

If you could show me a human being who does not have beliefs and does not obey rules, I'd be very interested.

chozometroid

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

I'm sensing a translation error here.
You must be intending to say "a religious belief" and "obeying the rules of that religion."
As it turns out, not obeying God's commands actually makes life much worse. Sin is easy, instant gratification, but the meaningful things in life and worked for. This is a deep topic.

Turtwig

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

Humans evolved to believe in God(s) so believing is natural. I'd argue that not believing in God makes you less human, but I think it's path a that humans will eventually head down. Religion formed the initial structures of society but it now seems we are slowly realising the flaws in those primitive structures.

As for enjoying life fully, well, when I was a believer I was happy, although I do think I'm much happier now. Yet the believers that I talk to seem to think that my view of reality is utterly depressing and chilling, which it probably is, but I love it anyway,:D
(Actually that probably goes for most people I talk to openly about that kind of stuff.)

mardybumbum

Malty_T wrote: »

As for enjoying life fully, well, when I was a believer I was happy, although I do think I'm much happier now. Yet the believers that I talk to seem to think that my view of reality is utterly depressing and chilling, which it probably is, but I love it anyway,:D
(Actually that probably goes for most people I talk to openly about that kind of stuff.)

I was never happy as a believer.
All that making sure I dont go to hell business was a pain in the arse.
But when the rapture comes, I will make sure there is a Christian nearby to grap hold of.
I call Dibs on Jakkass. :P

Turtwig

mardybumbum wrote: »

I was never happy as a believer.
All that making sure I dont go to hell business was a pain in the arse.
But when the rapture comes, I will make sure there is a Christian nearby to grap hold of.
I call Dibs on Jakkass. :P

I suppose it depends on the scale of belief you had, I personally never feared hell or for that matter saw it in the light I do now. Suppose I was always under the assumption I was going to heaven anyway.:pac:

I call JC.:D

astroguy

Assuming you mean "having a religious belief" and following the rules associated with that, then I believe it does render you less able to enjoy life fully. If you spend your time on this Earth believing in a higher power and a "better place" after death, then you are less likely to get the most out of and enjoy life. When you know this is not the case, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the wonders of Nature, evolved over billions of years. The idea is to make the most of your time here, as it's all there ever will be.

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

I call JC.:D

That would be a special kind of hell.

MrP

Boardnashea

I'm always surprised (or maybe reassured)by how much all the different sets of "rules" have in common. And that goes for the rules that people who believe there isn't any god(s) live by too. Ethics and morals don't require a deity ("deities" doesn't look right).

astroguy

It's true that ethics and morals do not require a deity. One of the most common criticisms of non-religious people by their religious counterparts is something along the lines of "without a religious book/ set of rules, how can you have a moral code?" . Religion is clearly superfluous here as it is hypocritical to say that you need religion as a moral guidance yet then to pick and choose the rules that are appropriate in the current age anyway. Clearly the argument becomes circular and any rational thinking person can realise that we don't need religion as a moral compass because it doesn't work anyway.

PDN

I don't think having a belief and living with rules diminishes one's humanity in the slightest.

All of us live by rules, and life can become impossible when certain rules are ignored or simply don't exist.

For example, most of us at one time or another have moaned about traffic laws. Stopping at red lights, not being able to park on double yellow lines, observing speed limits etc. can all be irksome. But anyone who has ever tried to drive in Lagos or Nairobi will tell you to be grateful for those rules!

philologos

astroguy wrote: »

It's true that ethics and morals do not require a deity.

Is it?

astroguy wrote: »

One of the most common criticisms of non-religious people by their religious counterparts is something along the lines of "without a religious book/ set of rules, how can you have a moral code?"

That isn't quite the objection I'd have.

astroguy wrote: »

Religion is clearly superfluous here as it is hypocritical to say that you need religion as a moral guidance yet then to pick and choose the rules that are appropriate in the current age anyway.

This is a different argument. I would hold to the position, that morality requires God. As in God puts the moral conscience into us, and gives us a moral standard to lead our lives. We can choose to live lives outside of His authority, or we can choose to respect and live in His boundaries which are there for our welfare and well being.

astroguy wrote: »

Clearly the argument becomes circular and any rational thinking person can realise that we don't need religion as a moral compass because it doesn't work anyway.

How does it? Again, shoving "rational thinking person" in there doesn't make your argument any more viable?

For any effective morality to really hold up, there is a need for objective moral attributes. If these don't exist, one cannot really call ones system moral, as it is not mutually binding.

Believing that these standards are derived from God is superior to the view that these are derived from ourselves. The latter falls apart on any real inspection.

chozometroid

astroguy wrote: »

Assuming you mean "having a religious belief" and following the rules associated with that, then I believe it does render you less able to enjoy life fully. If you spend your time on this Earth believing in a higher power and a "better place" after death, then you are less likely to get the most out of and enjoy life. When you know this is not the case, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the wonders of Nature, evolved over billions of years. The idea is to make the most of your time here, as it's all there ever will be.

When you realize you will die and cease to exist in a short time, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the "wonders of Nature?" Actually, I think when you realize that it's all in vain, the beauty should be removed. It's only beautiful because of the illusion created by your primitive evolved brain. You are just an randomly evolved entity observing other collections of randomly evolved entities. Your purpose is only to help your DNA survive. You will die soon and never know if you existed or not.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

For any effective morality to really hold up, there is a need for objective moral attributes. If these don't exist, one cannot really call ones system moral, as it is not mutually binding.

Agree in principle.

Jakkass wrote: »

Believing that these standards are derived from God is superior to the view that these are derived from ourselves. The latter falls apart on any real inspection.

Disagree vehemently. You do not need any god to provide the objective moral standard.

Soul Winner

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

Absolutely not. For the Christian the promise is deliverance from death to life. Jesus said: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly". John 10:10. Having no belief in anything and obeying no rules is what would make us less human IMO. Even if I didn't believe in Christianity I would still want to have structure and purpose in my life. Rules and values are what gives us purpose and structure no matter what the discipline, be it religious or not. Without these we just have anarchy, heck even the animals have structures and purpose within their groups.

astroguy

chozometroid wrote: »

When you realize you will die and cease to exist in a short time, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the "wonders of Nature?" Actually, I think when you realize that it's all in vain, the beauty should be removed. It's only beautiful because of the illusion created by your primitive evolved brain. You are just an randomly evolved entity observing other collections of randomly evolved entities. Your purpose is only to help your DNA survive. You will die soon and never know if you existed or not.

I don't think the beauty should be removed at all. Given that we will all die soon, I think we should marvel at the fact that we are here at all and have evolved the consciousness to ask these questions. What I meant was that religious faith teaches people to accept what they have, with the promise that there will be a better place. My point is that, when you die that will be the end, so enjoy life as much as possible.
I would say that the fact that we are only here because of self-replicating entitites such as DNA is all the more reason to hold this viewpoint.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Disagree vehemently. You do not need any god to provide the objective moral standard.

We're half in agreement then?

If God isn't required for the existence of moral absolutes, where do they come from? For moral absolutes to indeed be absolute they must exist independently of us. I.E There must be some form of third party to determine the standard which we draw from, and we must both have a common source.

What really convinced me of this point of view was my reading of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

PDN

astroguy wrote: »

What I meant was that religious faith teaches people to accept what they have, with the promise that there will be a better place.

Yet committed Christians like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, William Booth etc. demonstrate something very different.

Knowing that you belong to God and are going to a better place can also encourage you to get off your backside and start making this world a better place too. However, the belief that what you see now is all you will ever see can paralyse you with fear, so its better to try to enjoy what you have as much as possible and not risk losing it by working, sacrificing, and agitating for something better.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We're half in agreement then?

If God isn't required for the existence of moral absolutes, where do they come from? For moral absolutes to indeed be absolute they must exist independently of us. I.E There must be some form of third party to determine the standard which we draw from, and we must both have a common source.

What really convinced me of this point of view was my reading of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Do you know any sane person who quite likes the idea of a maniac breaking into his house and massacring his family and himself?

And do you think we are required to invoke a god to explain why no sane person likes that idea?

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

If God isn't required for the existence of moral absolutes, where do they come from?

It's a survival mechanism.

Jakkass wrote: »

For moral absolutes to indeed be absolute they must exist independently of us. I.E There must be some form of third party to determine the standard which we draw from, and we must both have a common source.

We don't need a common source, we just need a common goal/rule. And that doesn't need to be a committee-based decision on what rules to apply, it just needs to be a cultural practice that has proved beneficial for the survival of a group of animals.

Jakkass wrote: »

What really convinced me of this point of view was my reading of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Try this quote (I'm sure you've seen it before but I think it demonstrates the difference between us, as far as I have observed from your writing):

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.

Moderator's Warning
Less of the absurd, and untrue, generalisations please.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Moderator's Warning
Less of the absurd, and untrue, generalisations please.

Oh come on. It was a pithy quote to illustrate the current conversation Either what god says goes, no matter how you personally might feel about it, or you apply your own moral standard and will ignore a command of god if you don't like it.

You said yesterday that you didn't need god to tell you what was a moral action so I'm guessing you fall into the first category. Me too. I have perceived that Jackass favours the second category.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you know any sane person who quite likes the idea of a maniac breaking into his house and massacring his family and himself?

And do you think we are required to invoke a god to explain why no sane person likes that idea?

I think the point he was making was that without God there are no objective moral values. Only subjective ones. What if we discovered a race of aliens on another planet who's moral code was to break into other people's houses and massacre their families (I know its ridiculous but bear with me). Do we decide to bring our moral code to bear on them and teach them that what they are doing is wrong? If so, then to what standard are we adhering to when we say that they are wrong? If there are no objective moral values then who are we to say that our moral code is superior to the alien's moral code? Now don't translate that into I think that it is just as moral to massacre families as it is not to massacre them, that is not my point. My point is that like it or not, objective moral values do exist and everyone knows it, which means that God must exist, because without God there cannot be objective moral values. We know all too well without even needing it to be taught to us that massacring someone else's family is not just socially unacceptable behavior, it is a moral abomination. If God doesn't exist then nobody has a better moral code than anyone else because there is no absolute moral code which to judge it by.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

It's a survival mechanism.

This doesn't answer the question. A survival mechanism doesn't explain where this comes from.

doctoremma wrote: »

We don't need a common source, we just need a common goal/rule. And that doesn't need to be a committee-based decision on what rules to apply, it just needs to be a cultural practice that has proved beneficial for the survival of a group of animals.

It's impossible to have a common goal / rule without a common source. Without a common source, you have no place to suggest that your personal morality is any better than anyone elses.

doctoremma wrote: »

Try this quote (I'm sure you've seen it before but I think it demonstrates the difference between us, as far as I have observed from your writing):

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.

PDN is right, it's an absurd generalisation. Christians believe that God is the source of morality, God is how we compare right and wrong. It exists independently of us. This is the reason why I can say although Stalin may have had popular support in Russia, what he did was absolutely wrong. Why was it wrong?

We were created by God in His image. As such we should respect each other as a common creation. None are better than the other, none are more or less deserving of this treatment.

Morality for me, is reflecting our true potential and living out our moral purpose which God has given us. If we reject God, and stop living out this moral purpose, this is what I would call immoral.

Edit: If we lived without God in any respect, all that we know would fall apart. God keeps everything in order, and binds everything together including human morality.

doctoremma

Soul Winner wrote: »

What if we discovered a race of aliens on another planet who's moral code was to break into other people's houses and massacre their families (I know its ridiculous but bear with me).

Any group of beings who operated by this principle would not survive.

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point is that like it or not, objective moral values do exist and everyone knows it, which means that God must exist, because without God there cannot be objective moral values.

Why not? Why does there have to be god? How is any ethical principle commanded by god objective? And honestly, do you follow his examples of "moral" behaviour?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then nobody has a better moral code than anyone else because there is no absolute moral code which to judge it by.

You don't need god to judge a moral code.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Any group of beings who operated by this principle would not survive.

Actually they would survive, provided that they only behaved this way to outsiders, and not towards their own in-group.

The history of the United States, I believe, demonstrates that they have survived very successfully by appying this principle, for example, to the Native Americans.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Any group of beings who operated by this principle would not survive.

So morality doesn't go beyond what is beneficial for survival?

What I love about Christianity is that it motivates me to go beyond scratching another's back, but it actually calls me to serve other people above and beyond how I would serve myself. Morality for me, and ethical living shouldn't stop at just scratching another's back and keeping us out of the way, it should involve genuine compassion.

I know for certain that I haven't reached this yet, but I will continue to seek this because it is my teleological purpose.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the point he was making was that without God there are no objective moral values. Only subjective ones. What if we discovered a race of aliens on another planet who's moral code was to break into other people's houses and massacre their families (I know its ridiculous but bear with me).

Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral. I don't want myself and my family to be killed for the exactly the same reason that you don't want yourself and your family killed. We both want to live and we both love our families. We both have the same values in that case because we are both human beings and in many many cases, if something is good for you it's also good for me. It is mutually beneficial if neither of us kills the other person's family.

I can tell you with absolutely 100% certainty that we will never meet a race of aliens that considers massacring people moral in the same way that helping the poor is moral and my reasoning has nothing to do with our inability to get to their planet; I know that we will never meet such a race because if such a race ever comes to exist it will last only weeks before driving itself to extinction.

If god had indeed imparted objective moral values on us they would all the the same down the the very last detail but that is obviously not the case. Certain moral "opinions" are common across the whole species (the sane members anyway) because certain things are fundamental to our functioning as social animals, if we did not all share these values we would have to go and live alone in caves and kick our children out as soon as they were big enough to be a threat to us. Our entire civilisation would collapse. The fact that human beings share many common goals is not evidence of a deity in any way.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't answer the question. A survival mechanism doesn't explain where this comes from.

I meant in terms of evolution.

Animals that are "nice" to each other (for whatever reason, selfish genes maybe?) will survive and thrive.
Animals that routinely massacre large numbers of their own species will not survive and thrive.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's impossible to have a common goal / rule without a common source. Without a common source, you have no place to suggest that your personal morality is any better than anyone elses.

The common source does not have to be divine.

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN is right, it's an absurd generalisation. Christians believe that God is the source of morality, God is how we compare right and wrong. It exists independently of us. This is the reason why I can say although Stalin may have had popular support in Russia, what he did was absolutely wrong. Why was it wrong?

If god said it was right, would you still think it was wrong? Was it right that, according to the bible, thousands of people were killed on god's word?

Jakkass wrote: »

We were created by God in His image. As such we should respect each other as a common creation. None are better than the other, none are more or less deserving of this treatment.

I agree with the priniciples of the second part. I don't need the first part to dictate my opinion on this matter.

Jakkass wrote: »

If we reject God, and stop living out this moral purpose, this is what I would call immoral.

When is someone immoral? When they reject god? Or when they stop living a moral life? Or both?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Actually they would survive, provided that they only behaved this way to outsiders, and not towards their own in-group.

The history of the United States, I believe, demonstrates that they have survived very successfully by appying this principle, for example, to the Native Americans.

Sorry, I was assuming the planet of aliens was occupied by one kind of being and that the original point was that they were killing each other.